Is Kimmel saying what everyone's thinking?

[Bob Jersey]

Hospitals, he suggested, should just pass on unvaxxed folks who choose, f'rinstance, ivermectin:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jimmy-kimmel-vaccinated-hospitals_n_613837dde4b0aac9c01d3766 (link)

B

[Kevin M.]

I don’t think doctors can ethically turn away any patient in need. However, I feel it is morally wrong for someone who eschews science and medicine to choose to avail themselves of their services. I believe these anti-vax idiots should voluntarily refuse/reject all medical care when they get sick; to do otherwise is two-faced and reveals them to be the selfish turds that they are.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/a6085e59-4d0b-4721-a755-f75ce411dd7dn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Jon Delfin]

one step in that direction

https://apnews.com/article/business-health-public-health-coronavirus-pandemic-idaho-db21f9a14254996144e78aafb1518259

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4Bt0qkGfKGDLnVr2VVja%2B5bXe9bX5tppOpwRQmEvb%2BRDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[PGage]

Doctors can’t turn sick patients away, but the public health threat posed by COVID has always been overwhelming hospital resources. I would support allowing vaccine status as a decider in allocating scarce ER/ICU beds.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4Bt0qkGfKGDLnVr2VVja%2B5bXe9bX5tppOpwRQmEvb%2BRDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Tom Wolper]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:57 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doctors can’t turn sick patients away, but the public health threat posed by COVID has always been overwhelming hospital resources. I would support allowing vaccine status as a decider in allocating scarce ER/ICU beds.

It's federal law that emergency rooms can't turn anybody away. And that's how COVID patients arrive. And as good as it sounds in theory to say a sick patient won't be taken to an available ICU bed based on vaccination status, you be the one explaining that to angry family members.

[Brad Beam]

From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Wolper

>It's federal law that emergency rooms can't turn anybody away. And that's how COVID patients arrive. And as good as it sounds in theory to say a sick patient won't be taken to an available ICU bed based on vaccination status, you be the one explaining that to angry family members.

 

Speaking of angry family members:

If you’d ask my brother, he’d say that Dad can’t wait to pull the plug on him since he’s selfishly* “waiting for the vaccine in pill form.”

*Dad’s reaction to Chad’s subsequent response

 

That won’t happen – I’m his medical power of attorney. (But why am I imagining George Bluth’s henchman as the Angel of Death in a Covid ward, saying “…and that’s why you get the vaccine”? Social media, get to work on that one….)

 

_   _

|_>|_>  Brad Beam, on vacation- Columbus OH

|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

 

[Bob Jersey]

Stern echoes the sentiment, just more vulgarly, 'cuz satradio... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/howard-sterm-anti-vaxxers_n_6139a025e4b0628d0956eb12 (link)

B

[PGage]

I actually have had to explain it to angry family members (well, not explain, but help them process it).

It’s not a matter of denying a pt a bed; when the hospital resources are exhausted, some pts are going to be denied resources. It’s a matter of who gets the limited supply. I am just suggesting if it comes down to 2 pts needing one ICU bed, I would not be against using vaccination status as one of the tie breakers.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiHeSBfbqa0uU5uP%2Bnk7Lj3%3DrToqbVkHuPuXdtZMKtLnXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Wolper]

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:49 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

I actually have had to explain it to angry family members (well, not explain, but help them process it).

It’s not a matter of denying a pt a bed; when the hospital resources are exhausted, some pts are going to be denied resources. It’s a matter of who gets the limited supply. I am just suggesting if it comes down to 2 pts needing one ICU bed, I would not be against using vaccination status as one of the tie breakers.

There's no debate that scarcity is the issue. If there are two patients in Emergency who need an ICU bed and one opens up, the staff has to decide who will get the bed. However they make their decision, one family will be told we're waiting for an ICU bed to open. In this case the family doesn't know that a bed had opened and their sick family member didn't get it. So they might be impatient and even angry but the staff can say there's nothing they can do until a bed opens. If the staff among themselves decide to give preference to a vaccinated patient, who will know?

On the other hand if it becomes written hospital policy that vaccinated patients get priority in life saving situations, that opens up a can of worms. Then they are asking to be sued and get horrible coverage for abandoning members of the community.

[PGage]

I don’t object to such a policy becoming public, in fact I think it might do some good. If ant-vax pts get insulted and decide to take their ICU business elsewhere, then good luck to them. As far as lawsuits go, I would welcome some clarification on that as well. This is a tricky area, I don’t really want to make prior at risk conditions or decisions a regular basis for rationing healthcare. I used to work on a rehab unit fir head injuries, and most of out pts were young men who got into motorcycle accidents without a helmet. It was common for staff to say that we should have a rule denying care to anyone who got a head injury without a helmet, but that was frustration talking, not a serious suggestion. This is different, because the risky decision is not just responsible for the condition needing treatment, but for the stress on the system that is making rationing necessary. Any judge who ruled against this would have to suggest another, more equitable solution.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiEZbhFbqzy2ze4XYZ6sPKm3kcpjVEr73DPebsSZC7MZCQ%40mail.gmail.com.